Welcome President-Elect Donald J. Trump- Please help us Make America Great Again!


Helping to restore our Constitutional Republic

Qualification CONFERENCE to TRIAL Case Judy v. Obama- Judy Tees Off on OBAMA-DEFAULT!



It is probably the most [a]cidic and [o]dd circumstances used as tactics upon the United States Supreme Court ever devised by the Respondents, to completely fail to respond, but that is what is being done by Barack Hussein Obama in the highly controversial case Judy v. Obama 14-9396 set for Conference in the U.S. Supreme Court just six days from now. What remains to be seen is if the 'Triple Bogie' for Obama is seen as Par for the U.S. Supreme Court, and that Par is good enough. 


The Rules are verily simple that after a Cert is filed a response is due 30 days afterwards. A brief 
in opposition, sometimes colloquially referred to as a “cert opp,”  must be filed within 30 days. Sup. Ct. R. 15.2.,and Obama failed to do so hooking his T shot far to the left and landing in another fairway entirely. 

The rules do not require a respondent to file a brief in opposition or other response to a cert petition unless the Court otherwise directs. See Sup. Ct. R. 15.1 (“A brief in opposition to a petition for a writ of certiorari may be filed by the respondent in any case, but is not mandatory except in a capital case… or when ordered by the Court.”). 

If a respondent decides to forgo its right to file a brief in opposition, the Court’s waiver form, which also serves as an entry of appearance for the respondent’s counsel of record,  should be submitted within the time allowed for filing a brief in opposition. Although filing a waiver is not mandatory, a respondent who does not plan to submit a 
cert opp  should file the waiver form, which is available on the Court’s website. See Waiver, Supreme Court of the United States, http://www.supremecourt.gov/casehand/waiver.pdf This is Obama's second shot on a Par 5 that lands him in the sand trap. 

While filing a Waiver is not Mandatory even that does  require a signature and the Court in  Judy v. Obama 14-9396 does not have one. This is the ball hit out of the sand trap hitting the opposing wall of the sand trap and rolling back to the feet of Obama now three strokes behind and headed for that triple bogie. 

[The alternative—waiting to see whether, based on review of the petition and any supporting amicus briefs, one or more 
Justices are interested enough to require a response—may place a respondent at a disadvantage. See id. at 256. 

By opposing a petition at the outset, a respondent eliminates the risk that one or more members of the Court may form a subjective opinion leaning toward granting certiorari before considering the respondent’s point of view. Chief Justice Rehnquist once said that: 
“[w]hether or not to vote to grant certiorari strikes me as a rather subjective decision, made up in part of intuition and in part of legal judgment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, How It Was, How It Is, 265 (1987). It is clearly better to have an early influence on that decision. Needless to say, most lawyers would prefer to avoid having to advise their client that the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a case after you voluntarily waived the right to file a brief in opposition to the cert petition.] 

The Court normally will not grant review without first issuing a “ CFR,” a for “ call for response,” which the Clerk will issue upon the request of even a single Justice. See David C. Thompson & Melanie F. Wachtell, An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General, Geo. Mason. L. Rev. 237, 242, 247–48, Vol. 16:2 (2009). 

The history of the Court not only giving Obama latitude most pro se litigants are not afforded is legendary. In fact as the Petitioner Noticed to the U.S. Supreme Court in a highly unusual Motion for DEFAULT JUDGEMENT UPON RESPONDENT FOR FAILING TO RESPOND TO THE COURTS ORDER OF A MAY 20TH RESPONSE, the Petitioner hailed Obama's as being coddled by the Courts to the point of injustice.  

While in the process of exhausting State Remedies Mr. Judy as a Presidential Candidate in the Democratic Party was challenging Obama's ineligibility at the first T which was an executive court ballot challenge in 2012. This was not even in the Judicial Branch's authority as yet but was an executive branch court. The Judge in the case, Judge Malihi ORDERED, Obama to make an appearance or respond by Counsel and Obama's attorney instead high-tailed it to the Secretary of State in Georgia stating they would do no such thing. The Secretary of State told Obama if he didn't respond he did so at his own peril. Accordingly,  Obama set precedent that if charged the best defense was just to no.... Both he and his lawyer failed to show up for court in violation of a subpoena to do so. At the hearing Obama sat mulling over the defense contracts that had just been arranged with the State of Georgia to widen the ports and build defense equipment. Not surprising, Malihi made a turn about and not only personally excused Obama but slammed the Petitioners witnesses and evidence to the wall.  

Mr. Judy as a Presidential Candidate appealed the decision into the Judicial Courts of Georgia clear to the Georgia Supreme Court, which obviously still had "Georgia's best interest' rather then the Country's best interest at stake. This was appealed then to the U.S. Supreme Court which also failed to hear the Case in  Judy v. Obama 12-5276.  

The circumstance was recently revisited in  Malihi's Court but had a dramatically different outcome as the defense, a candidate for office was ordered 'off the ballot' and the Secretary of State in Georgia complied with the Judges ruling.

From the Petitioner Candidate for President 2016 we heard today, " Normally, the Court does require a Response 30 days after the Petition for Cert is filed. Obama's due date for that was May 20th, 2015, and here it is June 12,2015 and still we have not a legitimate and certified response. There is a Waiver filed on the docket of the Court, but the Justices have not seen that is not recognized and is invalid because it doesn't even have a signature on it. Virtually anyone could have filed that including Russian President Vladimir Putin. There is absolutely no way to discern who that waiver is from. None, so it is as if the Government and Obama,  both served this petition independently, have neither made a response. This is highly unusual and odd." 

"Defaults are generally a lower Court proceeding and that happens when a Respondent fails to respond after being served. This actually happened in my lower Court Case but the lower Court refused just like Judge Malihi in Georgia to recognize service and decided after six months of litigation to dismiss the case. Again, very odd and unusual and we of course appealed. 

"First we went to the Denver based 10th Circuit Court and they refused us twice. This is not unusual with a highly political case they think really should be reserved for the U.S. Supreme Court. There are many scholarly opinions now urging the Court to hear this kind of a case which has two Presidential Candidates at the head, one insisting the other is not qualified. It is a very difficult case to procure judicially and is like the ark of the covenant before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

"Normally, we would see a lot of headlines on this kind of a case, but it's seems like the Media has jumped in the tank on this one. On this Blog posted  May 22nd Obama's waiver showed up on the Court Docket. In that post three cases were cited as evidence that just because a 'Waiver' is filed, doesn't mean the Court is necessarily not going to hear the case. The three cases were cited showing 'Waivers' filed and Cert Granted. A "formal response" was also requested by the Court either the day it was posted for Conference or about five days after the Conference was set. 

"More than five days now have elapsed on this Case since it was set for Conference. This is realistically bad news. What we would call 'Dead-Filed', with no Amicus Curiae's being filed on either side of the issue. None have been filed for Obama and none have been filed to date for myself, the Petitioner in the case, although any and all were formally invited by me on the  Docket Report entry number two (2)- "Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from petitioner.". 

"Of course I had hoped America and those opposed to Obama would be on board in wanting to see Justice take place and Sheriff Joe's Cold Case Posse Report holding that Obama's identifications in selective service registration and long form birth certificates are forged be heard in an friendly Amicus Curiae brief to the Court. It is stunning to see that there are no Citizens, or Groups of Citizens in any organization who have filed any thing especially given the wide publicity this Case has seen in shattering circulation of well over 30,000 views the last month. 

"The greatest Response from those who you would think able and willing has been something a long the lines of this COMMENT-OF-THE-DAY we featured today in fact. i.e., [Pictured Comment]
It just is a FACT that when a case does have a "Amicus Curiae" or Friend of the Court Brief filed on behalf of one side or the other, that it does place the Case in a higher priority for the Court to hear.  

" What can I say, I'm deeply disappointed a few thousand dollars couldn't have been pooled together for a group of concerned Citizens to get one filed. Its as if the People want Justice, but want it free also. The price of Justice while reprehensible to think of in a bribe, is no less important as having a price to defend. Indeed, can anyone deny this in the blood that has come at the price of establishing the United States of America? What price is that? Well, blood comes much more expensively than does the paper money and coins in our pockets, but even that was needed to supply the Army with rifles and bullets and cannons and pay for the soldiers willing to establish and hence defend the Nation.  

"Pointing out to the Court not a single Amicus Curiae or Friend of the Court Brief was filed on behalf of Obama, defending his eligibility as well as Ted Cruz's, Marco Rubio's, and Bobby Jindals who are now Presidential Candidates for 2016 is a recognizable fact, but one that might be along the lines of allowing the Court an ease of sweeping the dirt under the table and no one noticing. 

As a last ditch effort to show the Court that Obama is no friend or gentlemen to the decorum and process of the Court, I have indeed filed today what is termed a "  MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT ON ORDER OF THE COURT FOR RESPONSE MAY... "  

Judy v. Obama Judgement for A Default U.S. Supreme Court

"of course I don't know what else can be done that hasn't been done from my person. I mean, obviously, the Waiver is unsigned, obviously even the Court's own provided Waiver requires a signature. Both the Government and Barack Obama have failed the directive of the Court and it is up to the Court to decide what to do next. 

"The Conference of the Court for the Case will indeed be held June 18th,2015 just six days away now and I have outlined for the Court in very simple terms that the Respondent's were served at every turn from the beginning. Now there is one principle that defines for us the Courts ability to do exactly what I am asking the Justices to consider and that though unusual REQUEST for a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT ON ITS OWN ORDER. 

CAN THE U.S. Supreme Court issue a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT ON ITS OWN ORDER, when it is an Appeal from a Lower Court? 

"The term that makes such a thing possible is called a  TRIAL De Novo Review. As fortune would have it, I requested this in my Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Under de novo review, the appellate court acts as if it were considering the question(s) for the first time, affording no deference to the decision(s) below. Legal decisions of a lower court on questions of law are reviewed using this standard. This is sometimes also called the "legal error" standard. It allows the appeals court to substitute its own judgment about whether the lower court correctly applied the law. 
A new trial in which all issues are reviewed as if for the first time is called a  trial de novo

"Under the Trial de novo review, the U.S. Supreme Court can look upon the Case as if it has original case jurisdiction. This would be as if none of the District Court or the Circuit Courts decisions existed or had ever seen the case. Obama and the Government were served the Case as if they had not been served, and it was to a great deal of trouble that I did this, but it might well have been worth the effort now. 

"If the U.S. Supreme Court is an Original Court set under the standards of a new Trial, then DEFAULT for a Respondent and not showing up, and not answering, and not following the decorum or edicts of the Court can be seen as meritorous reasons for DEFAULT JUDGMENTS. These could include awarding me with the sum total of what was asked for in the law suit which would be $140,000,000.00 U.S. Dollars split up between the DNC and Obama's Campaign Corporations. Now if the Court did that do you suppose we would see that deer-in-the-headlights stare from the likes of the DNC and Obama? 

"Of course we won't know what comes out of the Conference until after the Conference, but these are now possibilities that must be considered legally binding upon the Respondent(s) and acutely within the borders of the United States Supreme Court powers."

[Cody Robert Judy]  The Restoration of Justice is the Restoration of Hope for America! 

Cody Robert Judy's FB page has filled up with 5,000 so we would ask you to join the new and growing list of supporters on  FB here! Pass it on! 

We hope you will not spare  your Contribution today in the Res-TOUR-Ation of our NATION and support Cody Robert Judy for U.S. President today.

Views: 41


You need to be a member of ConstitutionalReset.com to add comments!

Join ConstitutionalReset.com

© 2018   Created by Greg.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service